Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 5381 - 5400 of total 17219 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Jun 14, 2013 - 12:16am PT
Nope, you don't get it. Asking intelligent, relevant, testable questions promotes better science. Spewing your moranic bullshit does not promote science, it pisses people off and confuses the issue. Even Ed seems irritated with the moranic bullshit you idiots are spewing, and Ed is one of the nicest, most civil people on this site.

Thanks for making my point. This is very relevant to current trust of our gov't to always do what is right. Ed will never admit he may be wrong, or his thesis is flawed. He can never be wrong, or will never admit that maybe the sun is responsible for global "flares" in warming.

This is why I lose respect for him as a scientist. But I leave room for me to be utterly wrong, despite what I've read and what appears logical to me as a person who is trained to find causation of problems. A trouble-shooter.

Everything I see points to people like Ed and Chiloe as being phonies. And I hate to state that, but everything I see says this is a natural phenomenon caused by a natural solar cycle.

Their utter denial of this is why I think they are disingenuous despite all the charts and graphs that have been twisted and distorted to fit a political/environmental agenda.

That's the way I see sh#t. Maybe I'm just stupid and Al Gore And Ed are smarter than me.
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Jun 14, 2013 - 12:27am PT
Maybe I'm just stupid and Al Gore And Ed are smarter than me

Maybe?
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jun 14, 2013 - 12:32am PT
Reporting back Professor Hartouni. Are you referring to catch-CO2? Obviously CO2 is not a blackbody or we would have had a runaway greenhouse effect long ago.But why do we have to go deep into physics to disprove this farce, other than it's educational value?I ask again, is this thread a giant troll for entertainment value?
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Jun 14, 2013 - 12:35am PT
Healyje, I know Ed is smart at physics, but adherence to what I see as clearly flawed AGW science is questionable from what I've seen.

I lose respect at that point. Again, maybe I'm the fool, but logic and history tell me otherwise.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Jun 14, 2013 - 12:46am PT
logic and history favor fat rich white bastards

I never said that un-truth, only a racist/bigot like you would introduce that into this discussion. Says a lot about your mindset.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Jun 14, 2013 - 12:53am PT
Do you know what an order of magnitude is?


Yes I do. Do you know what bedding with the wrong company means?
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Jun 14, 2013 - 01:02am PT
our conservative foil gets testy at our rifle scope getting tuned properly


Be careful. that rhetoric can get you in trouble.
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Jun 14, 2013 - 01:54am PT
Now of that 115ppm increase the portion attributable to anthropogenic causes is 3% of 115ppm or 4.45ppm.

I'd like to know where Rick found that. I'm not going to go back in this thread to find it if it was mentioned before. It's bullsh#t.
raymond phule

climber
Jun 14, 2013 - 03:45am PT
I believe that he has mixed up the human contribution to the carbon cycle and the human contribution to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

I doubt that he can find a single source from people like Spencer, Cristy, Lindzen, Svensmark, etc that back him up on that claim.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 14, 2013 - 10:25am PT
I think Raymond is on to something.

I believe this post is where Sumner got confused.

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=970221&msg=2159440#msg2159440

More on our contribution to the carbon cycle:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm


You can see about 40% of human initiated emissions are not being absorbed by land or sea, hence the incredible jump in CO2 atmospheric concentrations.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 14, 2013 - 11:07am PT
Maybe I'm just stupid and Al Gore And Ed are smarter than me.


A very short scientific study could establish where Blue lands on the scale of stupidity, buy why waste the time when a quick look at his posts will get us 99% of the way there.

Insane people don't think they're abnormal. In the same way, obstinate people don't bother to view the scene from a high-enough perspective to understand the issues from both sides, they prefer to stand solid with their viewpoints no matter how silly it makes them look.

Not one person here is able to show that the science that points to AWG is wrong, try as they may. When the science is unquestionable, those in denial say that science itself is bull-putty.

Go for it Blue, show us you're as smart as Ed by responding with something of substance. And take your time composing it, cause that's gonna be one large task.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 14, 2013 - 11:15am PT
Ron, nice cut-n-paste job. Did you read the paper?


Here's what I quickly found:

In response to Lu’s most recent publication, several different scientists interviewed by the Vancouver Sun each said that Lu’s conclusions “[go] against 150 years of very fundamental physics.”

And:

A new paper by Qing-Bin Lu in the International Journal of Modern Physics B is gaining coverage for its claim that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), not CO2, is causing global warming. This sensationalist headline is often repeated with little mention that Lu’s claims are not new, and have not held up to scientific scrutiny in the past. In fact, Lu has been promoting his theories about CFCs for years, and mainstream scientists have found no merit in them. Critics have said Lu makes a fundamental scientific error by confusing correlation with causation, and does not effectively challenge the physical evidence of the warming effects of CO2, a body of knowledge built up over 150 years.


Read more here: Qing-Bin Lu Revives Long-Debunked Claims About Cosmic Rays And CFCs


In other words, try again...
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jun 14, 2013 - 11:19am PT
Mchale- below is one of the sources for 3% anthropogenic contribution.From Dr. Fred Singer.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
raymond phule

climber
Jun 14, 2013 - 11:46am PT
Mchale- below is one of the sources for 3% anthropogenic contribution.From Dr. Fred Singer.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

So Singer is the author of that page?

Not that it really matters. I just find it strange that you and most other "skeptics" have no problem with ignoring everything from thousands of scientist but buy without questioning what a single persons say if you like what he says.
raymond phule

climber
Jun 14, 2013 - 12:03pm PT

If this were such a cut and dried thing, WHY is the debate going on?

Because people like you want another answer.


Why is there AS MANY sites debunking GW as there are in favor of current "theories"?
Because some people want another answer. There are webpages about almost all views about everything.

If you and the other "skeptics" on this site and many of the other skeptics would at least show a little understanding of the science and the tools used in the science (statistics, math, reading graphs, logic etc) it would be possibly to take the "skeptics" a little more serious.

crunch

Social climber
CO
Jun 14, 2013 - 12:21pm PT
hey, Ed hartouni, some of us appreciate your input.

Fully agree with your analysis of the situation.

1. The science of CO2 being a greenhouse gas is proven.
2. We are pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the air, very rapidly.

Therefore, the atmosphere will, in time, warm up.

Fluctuations in the our climate, sun, oceans (including cooling effect on the air caused by particulate matter from burning of coal and cooling of the oceans from melting of ice) can overwhelm this warming, at least for the present, but as CO2 levels rise ever higher, the human-caused warming from CO2 has to have an ever stronger effect.

None of this is in doubt.

What is in doubt is what we do about this.

Big thanks to the scientists who are trying to improve our understanding of what is going on, so the we can be better informed.



crunch

Social climber
CO
Jun 14, 2013 - 12:52pm PT
Ron, we are adding more and more CO2 to the atmosphere.

Here, a graph of CO2 sources:


http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

Trees are a small, tiny component.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 14, 2013 - 12:55pm PT
crunch

Social climber
CO
Jun 14, 2013 - 01:00pm PT
Fluctuations in the our climate, sun, oceans (including cooling effect on the air caused by particulate matter from burning of coal and cooling of the oceans from melting of ice) can overwhelm this warming, at least for the present, but as CO2 levels rise ever higher, the human-caused warming from CO2 has to have an ever stronger effect.

What are you personally doing to cease your part in all this, Crunch?

Or are you just another one of them typical folks out there that is waiting for the Gov't to fix it. All the while they/you are doing/living life business as usual. Probably so.

I'm posting something that you can't argue against.

All you can do is change the subject.
dirtbag

climber
Jun 14, 2013 - 01:52pm PT
^^^^^^Zzzzzzz.....^^^^^^^
Messages 5381 - 5400 of total 17219 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta